[ABC]Government Illegally Intercepting ALL Internet Traffic

StupidMoniker -- you are not going to make Hastings law review with that kind of foolish talk.

 

now it all makes sense.

he doesn't care about con law. he's too busy focusing on IP.

 

Oh boy, so we are letting international pseudo-governmental bodies decide what the law in the United States is now? When is Bush going before the World Court?

The courts have made many determinations that can be "read into" the constitution. It turns out that means that there is a public policy they want to advocate but since they are judges, not legislators, they have to pretend it comes from somewhere.

Apparently you stopped reading constitutional amendments at number 10 if you read any of them at all. Several speak to voting rights of all people born into the United States, and women are specifically addressed.

I came from here, so that might be kind of tough. Also, I am not the one hating on the constitution. In fact, I seem to be the one giving the most credence to what is actually written in the constitution. Quite a few people here seem to have big problems with some constitutional omissions though, and so put tremendous stock in what more modern courts have said. Just because it is law, doesn't mean that it is right.

Unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, homes, papers, and effects. Emails may be stretched to fall under papers, telephone calls would almost certainly not.

Congress is given the power to make laws. The constitution is the arbiter of which laws are valid, so the congress cannot make laws infringing on specifically enumerated rights. There is no such limitation on internet communications in the constitution (shockingly).

Of course precedents matter, they are the law of the land. The context of my post was a response to jo mama's post, which specifically referenced the Bill of Rights. Not judicial interpretation, not laws passed by congress, certainly not statements published by the UN, but the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Fine one reference to data mining or wiretapping there, and I will gladly stop posting forever.

Decisions can and have been overturned. It is illegal when someone challenges it, and a court determines that it is illegal. Then there will be a number of appeals until it reaches the Supreme Court, and then they will decide if it is still illegal. Somehow I don't see it happening, but it is possible. I don't really care either way.

Pft, Madison would be mystified at all of the things that I see as mundane. If he were brought forward to this time, I'd show him Internet p*rn and he wouldn't make another peep for the rest of his days.

Yes, the absence of a right in the constitution does not mean that it doesn't exist. If it did, we would have a right to bear arms, but not to bear children. The absence of a right in the constitution also does not mean that it does exist. We do not have the right to rape people because we find them attractive.

I've covered this above, but I don't know that emails would fall under the category of papers or effects. There is less of a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic transmissions than in post.

 

Regardless of what a bunch of white slave-owners said 200+ years ago, I personally don't want to live in a police state. These expansions of executive power are wide open invitations for abuse. Bush & Co. could plan and execute 10 Watergates without the public ever knowing. That's just the tip of the iceburg. We're heading down a very dangerous path, and it's our own fault for being so quick to pee in our pants ever time we're shown pictures of dark-skinned men wearing turabans.

 

was he being sarcastic?

 

you should check out the 4th amendment sometime.

 

Yeah, because it's not like they included the 18th century equivalent of phone calls. Now, what would that be...oh wait, it would be papers.